BHANWAR SINGH Vs. MEVA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE defendant-tenant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 16th of May, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Appeal No. 2/2004, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-landlord was allowed in respect of the disputed portion of the house of the plaintiff-landlord, which was not rented out vide rent-note, but it was trespassed illegally by the defendant-tenant.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patel Chandulal Trikamlal vs. Rabri Prabhat Harji - AIR 1996 SC 532, while considering the matter in between the landlord and tenant involving similar controversy, passed a decree of eviction against the tenant in respect of the piece of land illegally occupied by the tenant, which was not covered under the rent note but was belonging to the landlord and was situated adjacent to the land at rent, in a suit for eviction itself. THE relevant portion of the above judgment is reproduced as under:- " 6. It is contended before us that the above term in the rent note cannot be considered as a term of the tenancy because it does not relate to the land in respect of which the tenancy was created. It relates to the adjoining land. Hence, at the highest, it is a personal obligation cast on the tenant. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Clearly the tenancy of land was given for the purpose of tethering cattle. THE tenancy was of a portion of an open piece of land which belonged to the landlord. Looking to the nature of the use to which the open land was to be put by the tenants, it was provided in the rent note that the tenant will use only the portion of the open land which was given to him, and will not use the open land lying beyond the limits of the land, given to him on tenancy. THE clear intention of the parties was to ensure that the tenant only used the land demised to him and would not allowed his cattle to stray beyond the demised land. For the same reason, it was also provided in the rent note that the tenant would fence the land. In this context, this is a condition which is imposed on the tenant as a condition of his tenancy. Looking to the purpose for which the tenancy was given, this is not just a personal obligation cast on the tenant not to trespass upon the adjacent land. . . 7. Respondents in both the appeals have committed a breach of this term of the tenancy. THE first appellate Court had, therefore, rightly passed a decree of eviction in favour of the appellants. "